Chivalry

Been having a bit of a work debate with someone on the concept of chivalry.

Her view is that chivalry is a wonderful thing, and that it still has a place in modern non-sexist society.

My view is that it is basically the positive discrimination side of sexism, and while it may appear to be a nice thing, it is intrinsically linked with the belief that women are the weaker, more feeble sex.

I hold the door open for people for example, and I don't know if women think I'm doing that because they're women. I just view it as basic politeness. If you do that for women and not for men, I'd find that a bit weird.

It's basically politeness, isn't it? And my view should be applied to men and women directly.

If I see someone struggling with a heavy bag, I help. If I see someone old or infirm needing a seat, I'll let them have mine. If someone is being nasty to someone, I'll try and help diffuse the situation.

Doesn't matter if they are female or male.

EDIT: Everything I said has been said already. CURSE YOU SLOW FINGERS!!

I don't see it as being sexist, I see it as being polite but then I'll do a social favour (is that a thing) for anyone. I have noticed that there can be a difference in the way I perform these actions though, for example:
I'll hold the door for anyone but when holding a door for a man it will be after I've walked through the door but for a woman it will be before to let her go through first. I don't even think about it, just seem like an automatic action.

Chivalry in this context is actually a misnomer, what you actually mean is etiquette. And there are different etiquettes depending on gender (just like there are different etiquette expectations out of different social classes).

I was brought up by quite old fashioned parents, so I'll do things like always walking nearest the road when passing a woman walking who is walking towards me (there are loads of this little weird ones, that most people will have forgotten).

I'm sorry if i've ever walked past anyone and caused offence, like L_Franko, it's a bit hard wired now, I do it without thinking - but in this instance I doubt anyone ever really notices!

She's wrong. It is sexist, it's discriminating a persons actions and reactions based on the sex of another person. It's about the best level of discrimination possible but it's still being deferential towards her just because of her sex.

ZuluHero wrote:
Chivalry in this context is actually a misnomer, what you actually mean is etiquette. And there are different etiquettes depending on gender (just like there are different etiquettes expected out of social classes).

I was brought up by quite old fashioned parents, so I'll do things like always walking nearest the road when passing a woman walking who is walking towards me (there are loads of this little weird ones, that most people will have forgotten).

Hmm. Call it what you like, I don't really see why calling it etiquette rather than chivalry doesn't make it gender based positive discrimination.

I think in this day and age men could choose to accept the role of the gentleman, giving up seats to young women and all that. But it should not be expected, anymore than that gentleman should expect the young lady to bear him many children and stay in the kitchen.

There's comfort to be had in conforming to specific roles but to think that people should automatically conform is very wrong. It also display sa rather shocking lack of self-awareness.

It's just social convention, and as soon as it needs to be spelled out and taught explicitly, it becomes archaic. Yeah you have social norms of behaviour, and people generally adopt them because everybody else does, we're social animals, and it smooths things along.

The minute you have to consult a book to know how to behave on something is the moment you know that behaviour doesn't really matter.

ZuluHero wrote:
Chivalry in this context is actually a misnomer, what you actually mean is etiquette. And there are different etiquettes depending on gender (just like there are different etiquettes expected out of social classes).

I was brought up by quite old fashioned parents, so I'll do things like always walking nearest the road when passing a woman walking who is walking towards me (there are loads of this little weird ones, that most people will have forgotten).

Hmm. Call it what you like, I don't really see why calling it etiquette rather than chivalry doesn't make it gender based positive discrimination.

Khanivor wrote:
I think in this day and age men could choose to accept the role of the gentleman, giving up seats to young women and all that.

I just don't see how that isn't intrinsically sexist.

I suppose you could argue it's somehow "post-feminist" - recognising the equality of women yet embracing the spirit gentlemanly behaviour at the same time. That just kind of feels like bollocks though.

Khanivor wrote:
There's comfort to be had in conforming to specific roles but to think that people should automatically conform is very wrong. It also display sa rather shocking lack of self-awareness.

But that is exactly what social norms are all about. They're about shared rules of engagement during social situations. Awkwardness is avoided and all parties are put at ease because they know how the other will act.

How often do other people consider that their acts of politeness are actually slightly self serving? It's a weird quirk that the politeness of opening a door at least somewhat makes you feel good about yourself. I have held a door open for ages when really I should have just walked on but while it seems like the right thing to do it also gives me a little bit of pleasure to be thanked for something so unnecessary.

Mr_Sleep wrote:
How often do other people consider that their acts of politeness are actually slightly self serving? It's a weird quirk that the politeness of opening a door at least somewhat makes you feel good about yourself. I have held a door open for ages when really I should have just walked on but while it seems like the right thing to do it also gives me a little bit of pleasure to be thanked for something so unnecessary.

There's some name for this in Catholic theology where there's a paradox in charity and pride being linked (one is a key virtue and the other a mortal sin). Can't remember what it's called but I remember my father in law explaining it to me once.